++++++++++++++++++ FME2001: - Review reports for paper 03 +++++++++++++++++++++ - Dear author(s) : this file was extracted automatically from a very large - mailbox. In case you find any problem concerning mail encodings (or any - other kind of anomaly disturbing your understanding of the reviews) please - email any of the PC cochairs (pamela@research.att.com,jno@di.uminho.pt). ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ PAPER NUMBER: 03 CATEGORY: 1 TITLE: From Complex Specifications to a Working Prototype. A Protocol Engineering Case Study AUTHOR(S): Manuel J. Fernández-Iglesias Francisco J. González-Castaño José M.Pousada-Carballo Martín Llamas-Nistal Alberto Romero-Feijoo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): The paper describes a case study concerning stepwise development, supported by formal methods. 2. RELEVANCE: Please provide a rating of the paper's relevance to the FME Symposium, using the scale: 0 = Out of scope 1 = Marginal interest 2 = Minority interest 3 = Majority interest 4 = Outstanding interest Numeric Rating: 4 Please comment your rating: the symposium evolves around the question what the development relevance is of formal methods. 3. OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: Please provide a rating of the paper's acceptability, using the scale: 1 = Strong reject 2 = Weak reject 3 = Could go either way 4 = Weak accept 5 = Strong accept Numeric Rating: 5 NB: There should be a correlation between the two rates above. 4. CONFIDENCE LEVEL: Please provide a rating oof your expertise in the area addressed by the paper, using the scale: 1 = Know virtually nothing about this area 2 = Not too knowledgeable, but I know a bit 3 = Know a moderate amount, about average I'd say 4 = Not my main area of work, but I know a lot about it 5 = My area of work, I know it extremely well Numeric Rating: 4 NB: PC members are responsible for ensuring that 1 is not used here. 5. ORIGINALITY. What is NEW and SIGNIFICANT in the work reported here? Comment: The approach is in itself not entirely original, as these cases have been described earlier. It is however an original and significant case (i.e. not another dining philosopher), and these cases are still badly needed. 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: The goal of the authors is to explore the alleged benefits of formal methods in industrial software development. This is not a new goal, but it is still relevant as there is a lack of relevant studies of this kind. 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: As the goal is not new, the authors rightly restrain themselves and refer to the general literature about it. It needs not more explanation and justification as given here. However, it also appears that the authors set out to prove the validity of their approach instead of comparing it to other approaches. 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: yes. 9. APPLICABILITY. If the work is primarily theoretical or conceptual, are the implications in terms of applicability adequately justified? If the paper is about a new formal technique, are satisfactory arguments presented in favor of the new technique? If a methodology is proposed, is it sound? If experimental results are presented, is their relevance justified? Comment: The paper presents an experiment in system design that is relevant to the aforementioned goal. 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: CLear and lucid writing, occassional misuses of english grammar. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: no Are the figures and length acceptable?: yes Are the references correct?: yes/but see below 12. OTHER COMMENTS you believe would be useful to the author(s), including pointers to missing relevant work: The paper completely fails to mention related work that was done outside Spain. Their colleagues from UPM, whom they no doubt have worked with, are very aware of additonal approaches. Additionally, they would only have to browse through the proceedings of conferences that they have attended. +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++ PAPER NUMBER: 03 CATEGORY: 1 TITLE: From complex specifications to a working prototype: A protocol engineering case study AUTHOR(S): Fernandez-Iglesias et al. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Briefly SUMMARIZE the paper (2-3 lines): A case study using LOTOS and the TOPO tool set to design, analyze, and prototype a GSM-related protocol. 2. RELEVANCE: Please provide a rating of the paper's relevance to the FME Symposium, using the scale: 0 = Out of scope 1 = Marginal interest 2 = Minority interest 3 = Majority interest 4 = Outstanding interest Numeric Rating: 3 Please comment your rating: 3. OVERALL RECOMMENDATION: Please provide a rating of the paper's acceptability, using the scale: 1 = Strong reject 2 = Weak reject 3 = Could go either way 4 = Weak accept 5 = Strong accept Numeric Rating: 4 NB: There should be a correlation between the two rates above. 4. CONFIDENCE LEVEL: Please provide a rating oof your expertise in the area addressed by the paper, using the scale: 1 = Know virtually nothing about this area 2 = Not too knowledgeable, but I know a bit 3 = Know a moderate amount, about average I'd say 4 = Not my main area of work, but I know a lot about it 5 = My area of work, I know it extremely well Numeric Rating: NB: PC members are responsible for ensuring that 1 is not used here. 5. ORIGINALITY. What is NEW and SIGNIFICANT in the work reported here? Comment: 6. How WORTHWILE is the goal of the authors? Comment: 7. How well is this goal EXPLAINED and JUSTIFIED? Comment: 8. TECHNICAL QUALITY. Are the technical parts (definitions, statements, specifications, proofs, algorithms, etc.) SOUND? Comment: The case study reported in this paper is impressive in its scope and difficulty. My only concern about the paper is that it does not have much detail, so that the technical content is a bit superficial. 9. APPLICABILITY. If the work is primarily theoretical or conceptual, are the implications in terms of applicability adequately justified? If the paper is about a new formal technique, are satisfactory arguments presented in favor of the new technique? If a methodology is proposed, is it sound? If experimental results are presented, is their relevance justified? Comment: 10. PRESENTATION: Describe the QUALITY of the writing, including suggestions for changes where appropriate. Comment: The paper is very well-written. 11. Were there any formatting or mechanical problems with this paper?: Are the figures and length acceptable?: Are the references correct?: In Table 2, what does the shading mean? 12. OTHER COMMENTS you believe would be useful to the author(s), including pointers to missing relevant work: +++++++++++++++++++++ End of FME 2001 Paper Review Report ++++++++++++++++++++++